Re: reviewing the BP doc

Hi, Steve,

As I commented before, the words abstract and instance have different uses.
And I think is better to avoid its use without a clear definition. For
example, when we are talking about Object Oriented things, an instance has
a specific meaning.

I think that the fact that the access to data from a Dataset is made
through its distributions, this does not mean that a specific Dataset is an
abstract thing. An "Organization", for example, IBM, is not an abstract
thing. But I cannot reach IBM (I don't know if I am expressing my thoughts
in a good way). I think "Organization" is an abstract thing and IBM is an
instance of "Organization". In that way, "Dataset" (the concept, the class)
is an abstract thing. But a specific Dataset, an instance of the abstract
concept "Dataset", is not.

But people use the word instance for other things. In the same way,
abstract. The data that people can access, the data they can touch is what
DCAT calls a distribution. Is this an instance of the Dataset? In terms of
the informal use of the word instance, I think the answer is yes. But (IMO)
is not an instance when we think about OO.

If we have an API where someone could ask for a collection from a Dataset
using a query, each of the answers will be a subset of the Dataset. Could
we say that these subsets are instances of the Dataset?

The audience of our BP document may have technical different levels (I
guess), so I think that if we could avoid this confusion, it will be better.

Best Regards,
Laufer


2015-07-07 14:42 GMT-03:00 Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com>:

> Laufer,
>
> Good discussion.  Are you saying that there are instances of Datasets that
> get distributed when someone downloads them?
>
> Dataset
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Laufer ---06/30/2015 08:37:25 AM---Makx,
> I am really confused now.]Laufer ---06/30/2015 08:37:25 AM---Makx, I am
> really confused now.
>
>
>
>    From:
>
>
> Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
>
>    To:
>
>
> Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
>
>    Cc:
>
>
> Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
>
>    Date:
>
>
> 06/30/2015 08:37 AM
>
>    Subject:
>
>
> Re: reviewing the BP doc
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Makx,
>
> I am really confused now.
>
> In what moment of this discussion I proposed to change this model?
>
> My participation in this post was motivated exactly because I have
> identified a proposal to change that model and I expressed my opinion to
> contribute.
>
> And, again, the word abstract was not introduced by me in this post. And
> this word was the main reason for my opinion. I commented to take care
> using the words abstract and instance.
>
> I also agree that the group don't have to change the DCAT model (we don't
> have time to that), but I don't see any problem If someone in the group
> identifiy things missing in that model, and we discuss and even decide to
> insert a note in our document about this.
>
> But as all the things in the group, is a matter of proposals and votings.
>
> Laufer
>
>
>
> Em terça-feira, 30 de junho de 2015, Makx Dekkers <*mail@makxdekkers.com*
> <mail@makxdekkers.com>> escreveu:
>
>    Laufer,
>
>
>
>    Let’s not use words like ‘abstract things’ because we might have
>    different ideas what that phrase means.
>
>
>
>    What is clear is that dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution are classes
>    in the DCAT model. DCAT defines what they are and how they are related.
>    DCAT is also clear about how those classes relate to the physical data
>    files or to the endpoints that give access to the actual data.
>
>
>
>    I think we should restrict the discussion to that model. If not, we
>    might end up developing a different model, and I am not sure that this
>    group really wants to go there.
>
>
>
>    Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
>    *From:* Laufer [mailto:*laufer@globo.com*]
> * Sent:* 29 June 2015 22:30
> * To:* Makx Dekkers
> * Cc:* Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
> * Subject:* Re: reviewing the BP doc
>
>
>
>    Ok, Makx.
>
>    I know this DCAT diagram. I am comfortable with this. And in this
>    model, both Datasets and Distributions are not abstract things.
>    What it is not comfortable to me is to consider that a Dataset is an
>    abstract thing.
>
>    Laufer
>
>
>
>    2015-06-29 16:04 GMT-03:00 Makx Dekkers <*mail@makxdekkers.com*>:
>
>       Laufer,
>
>
>
>       Ø  I think we have to be carefull about using the words abstract
>       and instance.
>
>
>
>       Agree. Let’s not use those words.
>
>
>
>       Ø  From the discussions, it seems to me that the Dataset is an
>       abstract thing with instances that are the distributions.
>
>       Ø  This is what I have understood from the posts from Bernadette
>       and from you. And (until now) I do not agree with this.
>
>
>
>       This is **not** what I have argued. Please look at the diagram and
>       examples in section 4 of DCAT
>       *http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#vocabulary-overview*
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#vocabulary-overview>. That
>       section gives an overview of the modelling approach of DCAT. I would agree
>       that there are many other ways you could model this space, but DCAT is just
>       what it is.
>
>
>
>       Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
>    --
>
>    .  .  .  .. .  .
>    .        .   . ..
>    .     ..       .
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>
>


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .